UKC

The eurosceptics make much use of the figure of £350 million per week which we send to Europe and which, if we left, could be spent eg on the NHS. The real figure is £250 million after taking into account Margaret Thatcher's rebate and £120 million after support eg for agriculture and the regions is taken into account. But we might not even save this as Norway (outside EU) pays in about the same as us per head to be part of the single market. Just the facts please...

http://infacts.org/uk-doesnt-send-eu-350m-a-week-or-55m-a-day/#

In reply to Pekkie:

I would think that if you are wanting impartial facts, a site hosted on infacts.org will be about as reliable as a site hosted at outfacts.org.

As each day goes by I'm more amazed that people actually think a worthwhile economic opinion can be formed in favour of either option, and that this isnt purely about - in no matter what/out no matter what.

In reply to Ken Lewis:


Infacts is an organisation of editors and journalists committed to making the statistical case for staying in based on research and argument. It includes people such as Will Hutton and Alan Rusbridger and that is good enough me. In this case, the piece was in response to research by Full Fact, an independent, non-partisan factchecking charity, who originally came up with the figure of £350 million a week that was pounced on by eurosceptics. Full Fact have accepted Infact's (I know - fullfact, infact, confusing innit?) figures and corrected their calculations accordingly. Research and argument, you can't beat it.

In reply to Pekkie:

F*ck, you've name dropped an ex Guardian editor and made a condescending joke about two words being similar.

That's sure to win people over.

In reply to Ken Lewis:



It wasn't condescending, it is confusing. And The Guardian is a genuinely independent newspaper unlike some which are owned by offshore tax-cheats and UKIP bankrollers.

In reply to Pekkie:

They are bank rolled by the in campaign. Find an independent source.

In reply to Lion Bakes:


If you actually read my post carefully you would note that Infacts were responding to a calculation used by FullFact who are completely independent (If you don't believe me google them/check their website). FullFact have accepted the criticisms. In any case, Infacts are not 'bankrolled by the in campaign'.

In reply to Pekkie:

People front of Judea. Judean peoples front.

I dont believe you, infacts, funfacts, Rusbridger, offshore Guardian, Panama Hermoine, tory Tele, call me Dave, bourgeoise Jez or nazi Boris.

Because anything they say is irrelevent. Its in or out on the heart this one.

In reply to Pekkie:

You love a broad base of opinion to confirm your prejudices, obviously.

William Nicolas Hutton former editor-in-chief for The Observer and Alan Charles Rusbridger former editor-in-chief of The Guardian, from one political extreme to the other. ROTFLMFFAO.

In reply to Ken Lewis:




Well, that's cleared it up!

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Agenda driven number-outputting-machines. All of 'em.

In reply to Big Ger:



Clearly biased. What are the real numbers?

In reply to Pekkie:


Is that the same Guardian newspaper that used a Tax exempt shell company based in the Caymen Islands to avoid paying a SINGLE PENNY of Corporation Tax on a near £400 million profit from the sale of AutoTrader?

Just wondering, what with the Panama papers and all.

In reply to Pekkie:


But, Norway doesn't have any involvement with;

Agriculture Policy, Fisheries, External trade, foreign policy and regional policy. So the folk who say Norway has to abide by the same rules are wrong. It voluntarily partakes in the justice & home affairs policy, which includes the Dublin agreement, but it doesn't have to. It does also still get money out of the EU for science funding etc..

Roughly speaking Norway puts in 100euros per capita, compared to the UK 140euros.

None of this means the UK has to follow a Norway model, it can make a new UK model. If Switzerland follows a different model too, there is no reason why the UK can't.

http://openeurope.org.uk/today/blog/what-would-a-norway-style-relationship-...

In reply to Indy:

I thought the reason they didn't pay tax on the sale was due to the Substantial Shareholding Exemption (an HMRC clause?), nothing to do with the Caymrn Islands company?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


The bulk of the post was a ramble but the last line is the pertinent one. We can be told be either side we be better off financially if we stayed in/got out but really, no-one knows, it's all conjecture and most of it is used to further the careers of those fronting their chosen (for personal gain) cause.

I'll be voting for whether I want the UK to be part of the EU or not, not whether it means I'll be £3.67 a week better off.

In reply to Pekkie:
'But, Norway doesn't have any involvement with;
Agriculture Policy, Fisheries,'

Not so. Joint tarriffs, quotas, commitment to liberalisation of trade between the parties. Norway complies with EU regs as part of access agreement to EEA. You are correct tho' that it has no input to the formulation of EU regualtions though

In reply to galpinos:


In the same way that what Apple, Starbucks and Amazon et. al. do isn't illegal but The Guardian newspaper still likes to scream blue murder about. Pot/Kettle/Black

In reply to galpinos:


It may be that no one knows for certain, but if it's a choice between on the one hand all the major figures in the Labour Party, most trade union leaders, almost all Lib Dems and Greens, the "one nation" half of the Tories, the Bank of England, the IMF, Obama, Merkel, Hollande and Clinton on one hand and Boris Johnson, Michael Gove, Farage, Trump, Le Pen and Putin on the other, I know whose "conjecture" I'd rather trust.

Martin

In reply to Indy:



The Guardian had no choice but to comply with HMRC's Substantial Shareholding Exemption and not pay tax on the transaction.

https://justicefortaxesnetwork.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/the-guardian-makes-...

In reply to Martin Hore:

You forgot Jeremy Clarkson who is for in. That surprised me.

In reply to Pekkie:


Why not link to the Fullfact acceptance then. Cant you see that anyone sensible would be dubious about an announcement of fact from "Infacts" or "Outfacts".


and?

In reply to Ken Lewis:


You're not making much sense.


Nope. Still not making much sense.

By all means vote with your heart or gut, on the basis of omens or tea-leaves if that's what floats your boat but it's perfectly possible to find enough good information on this to vote with your head.
jk

In reply to Indy:

if making a tax saving exempts you, or former employees, from having a valid opinion on Brexit then the only way to decide it is to get a monkey to toss a coin... which might not be a bad option in any case.

In reply to KevinD:


Here you are then

https://fullfact.org/europe/membership-fee-eu/

In reply to Ken Lewis:


You couldn't be more wrong. Why not use your brain to assess the evidence (independent if possible) and the personalities involved (and their track record) to come to a considered conclusion? It might be right and it might be wrong but at least it is informed and logical. I passionately believe in staying in but there are things about the EU that worry me and sometimes, if I hear an intelligent eurosceptic on the radio, I think 'he's got a point there'. But putting emotion to one side and assessing all the facts and the personalities, on balance it is in for me.

Is there anywhere that actually has useful information? Every bit I see just appears to be BS or biased and I honestly cann't form a firm decision of in/out. Anyone else feel the same?

In reply to Pekkie:


Are you sure it's not the other way around? finding figures to support your gut instinct. A cursory look at your links seems to show a discrepancy with just one presumably simple "fact" that could be agreed upon - Infact £6.3 bn net and Fullfact £8.4 bn net ?

In reply to NottsRich:


yes to some degree, you trust a single source, as most things are bias, guesswork or theory, I think it is mostly a vote on how you feel about the EU in general and governance. You can like Europe as a group of individual nations, but dislike the EU etc.. I'm all for individual freedoms and local control/governance, so will vote out.

In reply to Ken Lewis:


I'm amazed you are amazed. Nationalism isn't that important to some people.

In reply to Indy:

I was just pointing out that if you want to criticise, it's best to get your facts right.

In reply to Pekkie:

I don't think I've ever spent very long thinking about whether it does or doesn't make economic sense to be in or out. It seems impossible to calculate and I'm confident that we waste far more money other things. Yes, maybe hypothetically some of the money could be diverted to the NHS (although in reality it probably wouldn't, and anyway in the long term we would loose out in other areas), but the reality is NHS spending already dwarfs EU spending. I'd far rather the government raised some tax to pay for increased NHS spending than brought us out of the EU.

My decision will probably be largely about the things that the EU does that I like or dislike. At the moments I'm probably 3/4 for in and 1/4 for out. Other EU countries have tended to be more socialist which is more in line with my on preferences, in particular I feel that EU legislation is the only thing preventing a Tory government exploiting the work force with decreasing wages and deteriorating working conditions. There is a whole list of other things such as environmental protection that I also agree with.

One of the main points of concern is this TTIP which worries me, and whilst I am in favour of free movement of people, I think government policy is resulting in it depressing living standards.

These are things that bother and affect me rather than an abstract numerical figure.

In reply to Martin Hore:



You think Merkel will be supporting the best position for the UK or Germany? I'm not saying that what's best for Germany isn't the same for the UK but why assume she's got our best interests at heart? What about Hollande etc?

Greens? I'm not sure I'd trust them on the economy, would you? Lib Dems, what, all nine of them? Etc, etc......

I'm for IN by the way, but that's because of other reasons, not that Cameron reckons it'll be WW3 if we leave, that Boris thinks the EU in the modern equivalent of Nazi Germany or that I'll be richer if we stay. When I think of the EU I think of far more positive impacts than negative and, though it could do with some reform, I want to be a part of it.

(I do agree that the OUT campaign seems to win on the "public figures I can't stand" front.)

In reply to Pekkie:


Alan Rushbridger, the man who has ensured (and hastened) the demise of the Guardian? He did a lot of great things at the Guardian but money and running a successful sustainable business is not one of them so if he's advocating the economic benefit of staying in the EU, I'm not sure I'll be listening........

In reply to NottsRich:


Full fact is about the most independent source I can find.

https://fullfact.org/europe/membership-fee-eu/

In reply to Jim Hamilton:


Of course that's always a danger. Which is why I went from Infacts, which is clearly for IN to Full Fact, which is independent. Their net figure for the amount we send to the EU each week is about £160 million (from the £8.4 billion), which i think you will agree is somewhat less than £350 million.

In reply to galpinos:

Possibly not the best businessman around but then look at some of the people supporting OUT. I knew about the tax cheating, bankrolling of UKIP and the pornography but the connections to the mafia (allegedly) came as a surprise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Desmond

In reply to Pekkie:
"It includes people such as Will Hutton and Alan Rusbridger and that is good enough me"

Well that fine because , everyone accepts Will Hutton is right on everything.
( Google 'Will Hutton' and 'wrong' . )
In fact Google just about anyone and 'wrong' and you will get different opinions

http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/regulation-industry/it-s-not-exactly-news-tha...
edit
"And contrary to what Hutton says (look, that's obvious, reality is always contrary to what Hutton says) "

In reply to Jim C:

I don't think that something The Adam Smith Institute says encompasses'everyone'. The Adam Smith Institute occupies a position somewhere on the far right between Genghis Khan and Attila the Hun.

In reply to Jim C:

Who'd have thunk it, a right wing think tank disagrees with the ex editor of the Observer.

In reply to Pekkie:

For me, the EU referendum is not even about economics, it's about unity versus separatism.

In reply to Pekkie:

I don't think it is at all correct to say that no worthwhile opinion can be founded in either direction. From all that I have seen, the economic views are in consensus as to the vast majority that Brexit would be harmful to the economy, both in the short and medium terms. Much of the disagreement is just around how much by. There are of course a few who disagree, but it is probably reasonable to give more weight to the majority.

This post (by a leading economist at Oxford) is a good explanation: https://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/media-economics-and-brexit.html

I also don't think we can say it doesn't matter. Much as it isn't always nice to admit it, we all (subsistence farmers aside) depend on the economy to some extent, and the tax revenues from a healthy economy are needed to pay for every public service we have or want.

In reply to galpinos:


I guess politicians can be arranged on a spectrum from "only doing what's best for themselves" at one extreme to "doing what's best for the whole world" at the other. (With far to many towards the "what's best for themselves" end of the spectrum).

I know how I would line up Obama, Merkel, Boris Johnson and Putin on that spectrum, and I think it supports my argument.

Martin

In reply to galpinos:


I'd normally agree, but Merkel doesn't seem to just have Germany's selfish interests at heart. Her party was slaughtered in the recent elections because of just that.

In reply to Pekkie:

Well yes, the £350m figure is rubbish and Farage and Boris know full well it is rubbish. The problem is they have other reasons for wanting to be outside the EU which don't sound nearly as appealing to the public as giving more money to the NHS. Stuff like reducing working conditions, paid holiday, etc.

In reply to Pekkie:

Chickenfeed. So we pay money regularly to a level of government that has a proper constitutional framework and democratic representation?

People should be worrying more about paying MASSIVE amounts of money to the UK govt at westminster that then goes out and borrows EVEN MORE MASSIVE amounts of money in our name but with no proper constitutional framework and rather dodgy representation.

In reply to BarrySW19:

I don't know why they don't just quote the figure that remain say is the correct figure, everyone would be just as incredulous .

In reply to Jim Fraser:

YES! VOTE LEAVE AND ACCELERATE FREEDOM FOR SCOTLAND!


Even though most Scots don't want independence.

In reply to Pekkie:

Every day this week the BBC News website has had a pro-In story as it's UK lead.


Hang about though, aren't UK houses vastly over priced, isn't there a 'crisis" of people unable to get onto the housing ladder?

In reply to Jim C:


The whole point of my original post was that - £350 million, £250 million or £160 million - it wouldn't make much difference as - like Norway and Switzerland - we would have to chip in almost as much to be part of the single market. This is the biggest single flaw in the Leave argument.

In reply to Big Ger:


I think it is a gamble.
Older people are more likely to vote overall.
Older people are also more likely to own homes.
Therefore if they might vote to remain in to keep prices up.

In reply to Big Ger:


Well, yes. Any major economic shock/disaster/tsunami/asteroid strike would cause a drop in house prices...

In reply to Pekkie:

Don't get too excited, he did not say your house prices would go down, but would take a 'hit' what he meant to say that they would go up 18% less than expected , lets. say an 'expected' 9% rise. So house if prices would have been 'expected' to go up 9% , it might only go up 7.38 % ( approx a 18% 'drop' on the 'expected rise)

I'm sure that is what he thought he was saying, and was not trying to mislead anyone

Edit
( but it might only be 10% 'hit' and not 18% - if there is any 'hit' at all, and some people might actually welcome a 10-18% 'hit' or reduction to the 'expected' increase)

In reply to Pekkie:

This is the biggest single flaw in the Leave argument.

Not really, the economic argument , 'won' or 'lost' on either side, is not really the big issue either way, ( we will arguably be slightly better/ worse off , and we may have some tariffs, which are not huge )

There are other issues that arguably concern more people, border controls, immigration, sovereignty( edit) national security for example.

In reply to Pekkie:

but, the population of Norway doesn't want to join, they would rather pay this money and keep their distance, their political elite want to the join the EU, but every time they asked the people it was voted out. There is no appetite for it. Switzerland, because of their political structure, the people have already generated elections to that reduce some of the EU influence, the same again their leaders want in, the people don't. It may cost them money, less trade, or less control, but it's a price they are happy to pay to avoid further intergration with the EU.

Doesn't this tell you who are the real beneficiaries of the EU money game. Big business leaders in the UK backing in the 'inners' only proves they want to remain big wealthy leaders, that they are not really thinking of average joe, whose wages are forced down and housing up, through demand & supply.

In reply to Pekkie:


Well, yes - and this is the strange thing - Boris and Farage aren't completely stupid (I said completely). They must know that whatever happens we would still end up paying pretty much the same as we do now for continued access to the single market. They know full well that there would not be massive savings from leaving the EU, yet they continue to make it the cornerstone of their argument to leave.

It kind of makes you think that they really don't have any genuine good reason for leaving, or at least not one which would go down well with the public.

In reply to Big Ger:

Reducing house prices by leaving the EU would be like a supermarket reducing its pieces by offering worse products, I.e. not a good thing. Reducing house prices by building more houses on the other hand might be a better idea.

In reply to kestrelspl:


This is being misreported as a house price cut, what he has actually said is that coming out of the EU (might have) an effect on the level of projected increase of houses. That is, they might not rise as quickly as is being predicted.
So price houses will still go up.

( or he could be wrong altogether, but he will not care, as his (designed to confuse ) statement that house prices will take a 'hit' will have frightened the people he wanted to frighten. )

In reply to Jim C:

Regardless of that choosing brexit because you want the short term economic fallout to reduce/slow the rise of house prices is a bad idea.

In reply to kestrelspl:

I agree, that is why that I have never said it was a good/bad idea.
I said 'some people' might welcome some future restraint on house price increases. ( edit so the plan might backfire)

Therefore I am not arguing that the vote will have an effect on house prices at all. (Osborne's carefully crafted words only allowed people to infer that.)
Osborne was actually 'predicting' a reduced increase - that may, or may not happen at all, and no one will actually be able to tell either way)

In reply to Pekkie:

If we go with that figure it's equivalent to £2.50 per week for every person in the UK - somewhat less than a small cup of Costa coffee. Even if that money were poured straight down the drain at the other end it still looks like incredible value for money for tariff-free access to the World's largest trading bloc.

In reply to Jim C:

>> There are other issues that arguably concern more people, border controls, immigration, sovereignty( edit) national security for example.

But those issues present a key problem. Norway and Switzerland have to accept free movement as the price of being part of the single market but with no say in the rules (despite their populations voting not to join). There are no easy answers/quick fixes in this.

In reply to BarrySW19:

There is an interesting conspiracy theory going around that the best result for both Johnson and Farage would be a narrow IN win. With an OUT vote Johnson as prime minister would face a mess with lots of irritating details (not his strong point) to be sorted out. The sole aim of UKIP as its name implies is to get out of Europe. Once out there would be lots of problems to sort out and they would take the blame if, say, there was a drop in living standards.

In reply to Pekkie:



Haven't the swiss voted it out? They were excluded from things like the eurasmus programme because of it, but rejoined it, by paying students fees direct, but still haven't back down on their eu migration veto.

When Norway had elections to join, their population got told all the doom laiden prophecies if they did not join. Obviously they never and most people would still much prefer Norway economic position.

In reply to summo:



The key thing to understand here is that, regardless of both Norway's and Switzerland's rejection of the EU in referendums, they both have to accept free movement and EU rules and regulations in order to be part of the single market. But with no say in setting those rules and regulations. AND they have to pay in a similar amount per head to us. They both manage to make a fist of this unenviable position because of their much smaller populations than us and economic strength - Norway from gas and oil and Switzerland from finance. Would we make a fist of such a position? Maybe, maybe not. But one thing is for certain, a brexit vote would not mean freedom from the EU, it would mean carry on much as before but with no say.

In reply to summo:






The EU and Norway do have fishing agreements..

It would be nonsensical to not work together on migrating species, hence even if we left the EU we'd still need agreements on most of our fisheries..

In reply to Pekkie:


you fail to mention they don't have all EU rules applying to them. You also don't mention that the UKs say is acutally pretty small and with every new country, proportionally smaller. Despite a looming vote on the EU, look how little the UK actually got in it's not so big renegotiation. Imagine how little say we will have after, once they know UK politicians are trapped in it.

When you say, Norway & Switzerland pay roughly the same, what you mean is slightly less. So they pay a little less and have less total EU influence on their nation, win win? As the individual sway of Norway, with population of a few million, would probably be very little.

The UK has finance and the city, the EU doesn't like that though and would love to introduce more tranactions taxes that hit it. The UK also have a strong space, IT and aeronautical industry... it has many niches that are proportionally bigger than most other EU nations, it should encourage them more. Music, theatre and film, often over looked too. A smaller population has nothing to do with how well a nation does economically, they are often lacking economies of scale. Large acreage countries like Norway and Sweden with low rural populations, have very high infrastructure costs per capita, which makes the case the Scottish highland usually set outs look pretty insignificant.

Also Norway use very little of it's oil & gas money in annual expenditure(3-4% is the norm), it's been banking it for decades, you might want to look up sovereign wealth fund. It does tax it's people very highly though, so people are paying for services they are using now, not tricked into thinking everything can be roses on shrinking tax takes.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

yes, and it relates only to it's Nordic neighbours. It doesn't allow anyone from the southern med to arrive with a massive fleet of super trawlers and scoop up everything.

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/international/agreements/norway/index_en....

So if we left the EU, we could have a similar agreement with Ireland, Iceland, Faroes, Norway and tell everyone else go take a run and jump.

EDIT - if you want the details, http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/documentation/publications/pcp_en.pdf
from the EU. Fisheries catch per area(page 24), NE Atlantic dwarfs all the others despite the waters off Spain being far far larger, wonder why the French and Spanish would like us to remain, but strangely UK fisherman don't?

Another reason they like UK fisheries is the sea has warmed, just a little, but there is species creep northwards.

In reply to summo:

Thats not true..

We share a much greater area than they do.


"So if we left the EU, we could have a similar agreement with Ireland, Iceland, Faroes, Norway and tell everyone else go take a run and jump."

This is just nonsense. Look at a map of the UK? We share waters with France, the Netherlands, Belgium and others.

The north sea has major banks which we all access and species move between. It would be nonsensical to look for numerous bilateral agreements when we are finally moving towards sustainable shelf sea fisheries.

It is absolutely nonsensical to make a fisheries argument for leaving the EU.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


That's what the majority of Cornish fishermen are doing.




Read more: http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/Looe-fisherman-slams-EU-quotas-spotting-Fr...

In reply to Big Ger:
And other species we take a TAC which is greater than what science suggested.

But overall the stocks are moving towards sustainable. T

http://theconversation.com/fact-check-is-80-of-uk-fish-given-away-to-the-re...


We have a much greater haddock quota than the french do..

http://ec.europa.eu/fisheries/cfp/fishing_rules/tacs/index_en.htm

of a 60,000 TAC, the french take 8250, the UK 36,000

I'm still trying to work out where those figures quoted (2000kg a day come from), it sounds like it is UK quotas that were sold.. But BBC cornwall are also asking for a fact check on them.

So it looks like that is the western channel, ground V11e, if so the french have 5000 of there 8250 tonne quota in that area, we have much bigger quota in other areas. In that area we can only catch 900 tonnes.

In other areas, say II and IV we can catch 29000 tonnes, which includes grounds which other countries own.

So the reality is we are sharing the quota geographically. But in terms of the UK quotas which can be owned by non-UK vessels if sold) we get a fairly good catch, the biggest haddock quota in europe.

In reply to Roadrunner5:
Doesn't stop them wanting out.


Read more: http://www.westbriton.co.uk/Cornwall-s-fisherman-overhaul-quota/story-27899...


http://www.cornwallgoodseafoodguide.org.uk/fish-guide/haddock.php


I'm struggling to find which are the Brit allocations from our EU overlords on the link you provide.

In reply to Big Ger:

Look at the haddock section, it lists each TAC for the species, in the EU and then by country for each fishing ground.

They may want out but look at the mackerel catch, we get 50% of the EU quota.

Its basically 'we want everything'..

Fish move between borders, our old way of just fishing fish in our borders resulted in severe depletion of the oceans, this new way is saving our fish stocks.

Yes the grossly inflated fishing industry has shrunk. It had to. It was totally unsustainable.

We can leave, we can join the yanks, we can totally join the EU, nothing will change, it won't suddenly make the fish grow quicker and reproduce more. This comes down to biology of the fish and production of the oceans, not our EU overlords...

In reply to Roadrunner5:


Got it now, thanks.

In reply to Roadrunner5:


I would look at where UK territorial fishing rights actually lie, not where you think national borders are. Think back to the cod war and the UK having fishing rights all the way up to Iceland. etc..

If you also look at what I linked you it shows how much fish is taken out of different areas, in tons, NE atlantic is probably equal to all the others in total. Other areas southern atlantic/ med etc. maybe large, but they don't contain the volume of fish that UK territorial waters do. The EU's own data shows this in black and white. (or colour, they have some pretty diagrams too).


Not all fish move, they are drawn to certain depths, certain sea beds, certain temperatures. Not all fish are migratory, either through the seasons or life cycle.


why? Fishing used to be a major UK industry, but since the North Atlantic and North Sea were hammered it's been forced to decline. I would see it as useful national asset, that we've allowed others to take off us, year in, year out. It would never happen if it was land, oh you've got a nice field in Norfolk for growing leeks, I think you'll have to share that field with 28 other countries, but in return there is this lovely little arid dust bowl in Greece you are welcome to come and plant some crops there if you like.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

but, that's just cherry picking data to match your argument. Why not look at the total size of fishing fleets (number of boats, size of boat) of say spain and france, compared to their own territorial waters. Then the volume of fish they catch in other people waters etc.. (usually ours and Irelands) etc.. finding one species and going there look doesn't really tell the whole story.

In reply to Big Ger:


R4s farming today was in a Cornish harbour last week, they couldn't find a single fisherman, boat owner or connected business that wanted to stay in the EU.

In reply to summo:
Hardly surprising.


Here's an example of that;





Read more: http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk/Fishermen-South-West-braced-damaging-cu...

In reply to summo:
That s absolute nonsense!

I can't believe people like your post because it Is unsubstantiated and made up not based on anything.

You call cherry picking us having 3 timed the quota.. We sold our quota.. That's our issue, we didn't have to

In reply to Big Ger:


Sorry to state the obvious, but if there aren't enough fish out there for every boat to remain in business then surely some boats have to go out of business. The alternative is no fish left at all. I don't see how Brexit will suddenly increase the number of fish.

Fish conservation is one area policy area where decisions have to be made on a multi-national basis. the EU may not be perfect, but it's the best forum we have for deciding these issues.

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:


I agree. I'm not sure that anecdotal evidence from individual fishermen going off on one in the pub is helpful. The EU constructed a deal in 2014 on balancing fish stocks and a thriving fishing industry which was agreed with our government and fishermen. If French trawlers are catching more than their quota then the deal needs to be enforced - a cannonball over the bows should shiver their timbers. It's not really a brexit issue.

>

In reply to Martin Hore:

Exactly..

The fishing industry was WAY too big. Read 'Cod' by Kurlanksy?

The industry had to shrink massively.

Yes Cornish fisherman may have got a bad deal, other areas/fisheries got good deals. That is wha happens, if British boats then opted to sell their quota that is tough luck. You can't sell with one hand then complain about lost vessels with the other.

TBH the simple choice was lose fisherman or lose a species for ever. Look at the cod fisheries of North America

We compromise, we negotiate. In the EU or not this process would go on but with probably even more selfishness.

And Summo, honestly do you know anything about fisheries? If a species does not migrate and is not interconnected then you can manage that fishery. This is true for many inshore fisheries, crabs and lobsters. There are other regulations from the EU but not regarding TAC.

The EU governs those fisheries which either migrate or we share stock. Its the only way it can work.

The UK has a pretty good deal in terms of fisheries on the whole, we have changed the discard law for pelagic fish and a demersal discards ban is about to happen. We get one of the largest TAC's for most of the species in our joint shelf sea areas like Haddock.

That issue is a very small section of coast for cornish fisherman, but they also have other restrictions.

But even outside the EU we will have to either reach bilateral deal, or fish out the species and crash the fisheries, which has happened elsewhere and was happening prior to the CFP.

Look at the Med fisheries where you have the CFP abutting the African countries and with no agreements each country is overfishing and almost the entire mediterranean is heavily overfished, which is why Nephrons is such a savior fishery for the UK, as white fish declined we exploited Nephrops (the species you couldn't over fish... yet we did) and sold to the Med countries for a high price.

But of the 60,000 tonnes, 50% is British quota because most of the Nephrons reside in our waters.

Foreign ownership is an issue and is now being more controlled, but that won't change if it was non-EU suddenly.

In reply to Pekkie:

Hold on, I don't think French vessels are doing anything wrong?

They can take their quota from that sector. We do it to other countries when we have the greater quota in other sectors.

""I've got no problem with people making a living," he told the Cornish Guardian. "It's a free ocean, and no one owns the fish.

"But it's not a level playing field for British boats.

"The haddock are in that area at the moment, but there's nothing we can do. While the French are fishing there we just have to avoid the area.

"They're travelling 100 miles to get the fish, but we can't take any and it's only an hour from Looe. It's just ridiculous.

"We're not blaming the French crews - they're only doing what they're allowed to do £ but it's just so frustrating."


Read more: http://www.cornishguardian.co.uk/Looe-fisherman-slams-EU-quotas-spotting-Fr...
Follow us: @cornishguardian on Twitter | cornishguardian on Facebook"

You are right, its not a brexit issue.

We would still need to reach a deal on who catches what, all we are saying is 'We get 28000 tonnes of the EU haddock, France gets 8000'

We then divide it up by sector, in that sector French get 2/3rd of their 8000 quota, we get a small amount.

The fish are then free to be fished up to that TAC, on top of that we have limits on fishing days and numerous other regulations which make a lot of sense. You want to encourage efficient fishing, with nets in the water for the minimal amount of time.

In reply to Roadrunner5:
Have you considered that the reason the water got over fished was because it became an EU free for all, for a little while. Now you heap praise on the EU for partially fixing a problem they started. It's like the EU taking praise for solving the butter mountains etc.. The EU has a habit of meddling in industries it doesn't understand, screwing them up, then trying to take the credit for half fixing them afterwards.

If each country fished and controlled its own waters, then it would have a vested interest to look after it. But with everyone fishing each others they don't care, long term strategy is limited, which for industry which has generations following the family trade, or taking over the boat etc.. is a missed opportunity for some self governance, rather than paying someone in Brussels to decide.

If the EU has been so great for fishing your ideas don't really explain why the fishermen/women don't agree with you. Surely they know more than both of us put together?

In reply to summo:


That is absolute bollox!

Look at historical catches, they have declined 95% over the last 100 years! and you think its the EU free for all??

Come on, at least read. You are a smart guy. The EU made mistakes but jesus christ this is just incredible. Please read Cod then come back and we can discuss this. The overfishing was decades and decades ago... you get long lags in fish stocks.

Seriously you are so far wrong on this I am gob smacked as you are normally not far off the mark but this is almost like the mark is invisible!

In reply to summo:
"If each country fished and controlled its own waters, then it would have a vested interest to look after it. But with everyone fishing each others they don't care, long term strategy is limited, which for industry which has generations following the family trade, or taking over the boat etc.. is a missed opportunity for some self governance, rather than paying someone in Brussels to decide. "

This does not work. The french catch too much, so we will catch too much as the stock will disappear anyway, so we may as well all over fish.. that is what happened to the cod fishery, there was no desire to fish sustainably unless we all do.

Come on seriously look at historical catch rates and the MASSIVE overfishing throughout thhe developed world.

This is the problem with the referendum. people will like any comment if it supports their view and not check the underlying evidence.

The evidence is very very very very clear that it was historical overfishing which caused the huge fish crashes, long long before the CFP..

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v1/n2/full/ncomms1013.html

"In 2009, the European Commission estimated that 88% of monitored marine fish stocks were overfished, on the basis of data that go back 20 to 40 years and depending on the species investigated. However, commercial sea fishing goes back centuries, calling into question the validity of management conclusions drawn from recent data. We compiled statistics of annual demersal fish landings from bottom trawl catches landing in England and Wales dating back to 1889, using previously neglected UK Government data. We then corrected the figures for increases in fishing power over time and a recent shift in the proportion of fish landed abroad to estimate the change in landings per unit of fishing power (LPUP), a measure of the commercial productivity of fisheries. LPUP reduced by 94%£17-fold£over the past 118 years. This implies an extraordinary decline in the availability of bottom-living fish and a profound reorganization of seabed ecosystems since the nineteenth century industrialization of fishing"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10096649

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/may/04/fish-stocks-uk-decline

"In 1937, at the peak of the UK's fishing industry, the catch was 14 times what it is now, the study, by the University of York and the Marine Conservation Society, said. The availability of bottom-living fish has since fallen by 94%."

Yet you think it is because of the CFP free for all.... shakes head..

"The figures indicated fish stocks were in decline well before the amount of fish being caught went "catastrophically downhill" in the 1960s, the study's authors said."

regarding self governing.. that can't happen. It didn't happen. Fish stocks are too chaotic, we get cycles in abundance, differences in ocean productivity, you need to look at long term data sets to set TACs.. not year on year, 'well this should be available next year now'..

In reply to summo:

Fisherman don't agree because there are less jobs..
That had to happen. The fish are not there, well were not.

They are coming back slowly.

But fishing communities will never be what they were.

It is like the coal mining in South wales, we can blame the EU and we can blame thatcher but the simple fact was the resources were declining and we needed to modernize and cut employment numbers.

Britain has actually been given a greater TAC than science suggested so a UK outside the EU would probably (hopefully) set TAC's even lower.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X15003206

"Of all Member States, Denmark and the United Kingdom received the highest TACs in volume above scientific advice."

So whilst the CFP has led to improving fish stocks we are still letting our hearts rule our heads and still add that 10-20% onto science advice.. we;ve been doing this for decades.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X1200200X

"While recognizing that much remains to be done to achieve the objective of the WSSD, the analyses indicate that actions implemented in the last decade under the CFP have led to an improvement in the status of many commercially important fish stocks and their fleets towards levels that are closer to those producing MSY."

In reply to Roadrunner5:

so how have the EU saved the species and built them up so quickly, can't have it both ways?


I presume I imagined the EU interference, how ever many millions of tons of fish thrown over the side, unworkable quotas, whole fleets of small boats scrapped, whilst super trawlers continue to scoop up everything. Or the EU messing with farming, wine lakes, butter mountains, followed by set aside... everywhere they try to control an industry with EU wide legislation, it doesn't work, because it highlights the vast differences in the EU nations and how out of touch their officials are.

In reply to summo:

It started in 1983.. we are in 2016.. that is 4 decades of changes to finally see improvements.

Jesus christ have you read anything!

Ok fish discarding has been banned in pelagic fish and is being banned in demersal fish. Yes they were wrong. That changed. We oversaw the terminal decline in our fishery so we all made mistakes.

In reply to summo:



Do you think if we were outside the EU we would have protectionist policies towards small fishing boats? Do you think foreign investors would be prevented from registering super-trawlers at UK posts?

I doubt it.

In reply to Pekkie:


If it were just that, you'd have a point.

In reply to Big Ger:

Its worrying that Summo's un-referenced posts get more likes than mine.. which provide references.

Summa is just quoting mis-facts and lies. His views are not supported by evidence.

Yes people aren't happy. That doesn't mean they should be! We allowed overfishing in our seas and in OTHER PEOPLES seas for decades. Our fishing fleet was FAR TOO BIG. Look at CPUE? I showed the graphs. How can that continue?

The whole of europe is complaining as we all have over fished. We all need smaller fisheries so we all complain..

Do you not want a world where we make decisions based on science.. on knowledge..

Yes fisherman who lost jobs are unhappy.

Look, I can run as PM and tell everyone the UK will be great, we'll throw out all illegals.. we'll renegotiate all deals so we win... but are the UK populace that thick?

Ok, lets put up our hands? Who here has worked on fishing trawlers?

Have you seen them work? They hunt. Its great to see, so skilled, but it is hunting. Even scientific crew who were fisherman retain that hunting instinct. They want to fish, it is in their blood. Like Miners. The fact is that industry could not continue and must get reduced.

This is french fisherman protesting:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/5170567/French-fish...

This is UK fisherman moaning: See top link

This is Danish moaning:
https://www.undercurrentnews.com/2014/01/29/danish-fishermen-frustrated-ove...

This is the Irish complaining:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/republic-of-ireland/supertrawlers-no...


So say we get rid of the EU? Then what? We all just over fish our seas, as others will. This is what did happen. Not what may happen. This was why we looked for a CFP.

In reply to Big Ger:

Whose point is it?

The general view is the UK fishery is taking a larger share than science suggests..

So can someone pro EU explain how if we have a pot of 200 balls, and 5 pickers who all want 60 balls each... how can they all be happy?

And I love the fact this is disliked, without an answer.. i.e.. I have no answer but we should all get 60 balls each...

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I think the general point is that UK fishermen feel that the massive bureaucratic monstrosity of the EU is not the body which should be micro managing the UK fishing fleet.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


protectionist, it's the small family run boats who've suffered the most in recent times. Many EU countries run those super trawlers anyway, so registering them in Europe, is a good as registering them in the UK.

that is just typical 'inners' thinking, that we have the EU to thank for everything. If you believe them, then without the EU the UK would have had no international trade, overseas employees, foreign travel, etc.. etc... they make it sound like it would have never happened.

History is set, it's done. The question is should the UK be setting it's own fisheries, farming... policies in the future, not a one size fits all.

In reply to Roadrunner5:

perhaps because we have a large area of territorial fisheries? If you look at the EU's own stats, other EU nations are doing very well out of the NE atlantic too. Spain especially so.

Of those 200 balls in the fisheries, 50 were probably originally the UK's, now we have to share 200 with 28 countries, and that's fair? I don't care if other nations are happy or not. Spain or Portugal, for example have other natural assets, like a longer growing season etc.. the UK can't take a share of that, why should it share its fisheries?

In reply to summo:



You seem to have got the wrong end of the stick..... you implied that EU policies had harmed small UK fishing boat operators, or did I get that wrong?

My point was I don't think small fishing boat operators would fare any better if the UK were out of the EU, UK policy has moved away from protectionist policies in favour of foreign investment.

In reply to summo:

Yes the UK can take a share of that. Nothing preventing British companies from buying and farming land in Spain, or anywhere else in the EU, if they want to.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


I did, there are plenty of big trawlers from spain etc.. fishing UK waters right now, they don't need to be in the registered in the UK.


it's all water under the bridge now, but the UK could have managed it's own fleet and controlled it's own waters. Where the money came from would be down to the people, the problem is the UK often only has national pride when it comes to football etc... most people, if they think they save even a penny would buy form overseas without a single thought to the consquences.. so in some ways you get the country or economy you deserve.

In reply to RomTheBear:


but Spain for example has not bought a share of the NE Atlantic, but it still fishes it. So how does that work with your analogy, can the UK be given some prime farming land in southern Europe for free?

In reply to summo:


Buy from whom?

In reply to summo:




And the answer is no!

We should take an ecosystem level approach to fisheries management. Ie the whole f*cking ecosystem..

You have provided no facts or evidence in two days... You've just spouted unsubstantiated opinions.

In reply to summo:

and where does the UK fish? just UK waters? We are ok with fishing sectors we have quotas for even if they aren't in our waters.. but nobody else can fish british waters..

In reply to Roadrunner5:

I think we're quite lucky in this argument that people hardly eat bloody fish in this country anyway. Imagine how heated this would get if it was shoals of Rustler's microwave burgers out there.

In reply to summo:

This is just typical of the "outers" who do not undertand the way International markets and businesses operate these day. You and I have had this discussion before and you were unable to respond last time.

Let us take farming.Farmers sell their product into the food chain. Food companies export and one of their markets is Europe. therefore whether you are in or out you are going to have to comply with european food standards. Its really simple farmers will still have to comply with EC standards, so any new legisaltion in the Uk put through after an Out vote ( heaven forbid it) will still need to be be EC compliant.

So your view that we set set our own policies in isolation is just " rubbish".

Its not difficult to grasp this issue.

In reply to neilh:
sorry to let your let rant go to waste, did I actually say UK farmers would be able to sell food that was not up to EU standards? (which aren't that high really).

Why couldn't the UK set a higher bar and use that as a marketing tool? It wouldn't take much effort to beat southern Europe or some North Europeans antibiotic use, which is a major concern these days.

Just because a country has policies in isolation, does mean they have to be of a low standard. Think positive, not negative. You are right it's not difficult to grasp and it's why I never said standards could be lower.

In reply to summo:

So you're proposing higher standards, making the produce more expensive and less competitive.

In reply to summo:

You are a farmer in Northern Ireland selling to Republic of Ireland. Are you going to comply with EC standards or not?

When you come to drawing up the legislation/regulations in the new Out Uk are you going to prepare the legislation/regulations in compliance with EU terminology /standards or not?

The answer is obvious.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

No, it is called added value, pretty normal in food production industry. Called it niche, high end whatever, the UK doesn't have a surplus of food, its a net importer. Better to sell high for good money and import bulk of other stuff that can be grown else where.


It is like UK manufacturing, no point in trying to compete on mass production, develop your speciality.

UK cheese, grass fed organic steak, your novelty stuff like black pudding, smoked skippers, pork pies...

I think you need a broader more positive outlook.

In reply to neilh:
This is like pulling teeth, I never said lower or not meeting eu standards, I'm talking about exceeding them.

For example, Swedish and norwegian farming regs are harsher than the eu standard, animal welfare rules are tighter and antibiotic use is the lowest in Europe. But, their meat costs more than danish stuff, but people buy local because they understand the benefits to the environment, the animals and probably themselves.

Why can't the UK have some national pride and loyalty, but also some confidence to break free and set their own goals, that will still meet the eu's lower ones. The in campaign is all doom and negativity, it rarely gets you anyway.

In reply to summo:


All you're doing is adding cost. Have a look around your supermarket (well, not your supermarket, we're not talking about Sweden) and see whether people's trolleys contain niche foods. Or perhaps they're buying bulk foods, where raising the cost of production would have a major impact on suppliers.


Food is mass production.


And that's what everyone eats? Clown.

In reply to summo:

This http://beefandlamb.ahdb.org.uk/market-intelligence-news/the-state-of-the-uk... is the most recent report I can find on chicken production (we eat a lot of it). How will increasing the costs of producing chicken help sell more if we're competing as a country outside of the EU?

P.s. It also references the phasing out of antibiotics, but that can't be right because the evil Eu wouldn't let us do that.

In reply to summo:

Of course you can have higher standards, but you still have to comply with the ec standards in the first place . I am not sure who is pulling teeth here.....

In reply to summo:

Because you think the Spanish farmer was given his prime farming land for free maybe ?

The point here is that everybody in the eu can do business in the uk and in return we can do business anywhere else in the EU.
Protectionism and mercantilism have been tried, it did not work.

In reply to summo:


Where? And we fish all over.. We buy and trade quotas..

Tbf there's few countries worse than us when it comes to over fishing and securing stocks..

Yes the fishing industry aren't happy. How can they be, there isn't the fish there was, we can never return to those levels of fishing because it was so harmful to stocks.

Our best bet is aquaculture.. And again, as said the Brits don't eat seafood, so we export to Europe, especially the med. leaving t he EU threatens that again. So not only do we risk fishery management we also risk losing our main customers, they can get seafood elsewhere.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


if you look in a typical big chain supermarket, I will see meat, milk, etc.. selling for below the cost of production. The EU then gives 40% of it's total budget to farmers to keep them afloat. After 30-50 years of the EU, if that is the best system the EU can come up with, then I'm happy to vote out without a second thought.


If you can't debate like an adult, just because somebody has a different opinion to you, then I won't be bothering.

In reply to RomTheBear:


before the EU people traded globally, the EU trades with non EU nations now, non- EU nations trade with each other etc.. Just because you leave Brussels, the world doesn't end, the same as the world didn't start when we joined the EU.

If you think back to same scary nonsense about leaving the ERM, look what happened since.

In reply to summo:


I admire your optimism.

In reply to summo:


So you accept that your plans for higher standards would increase costs and lower the UK's competitiveness and you have no plan as to how to replace the funding for farmers. But we (I use the term loosely) would be better off out.


I try to pitch it at an appropriate level

In reply to summo:

Actually not really, protectionism was rampant in the world pretty much until well after WWII, when european insitutions started being built.

And the world still is a very protectionist place outside of the big markets. Still very difficult and expensive to exports services and for professionals to move around.

If you don't understand that there is a difference between simply trading goods and being able to tap an vast integrated market, you haven't understood much about the issues.



Actually, no, it's completely different.

In reply to RomTheBear:


If you don't understand that leaving the EU does not mean exclusion from those markets, you haven't understood much about the issues.

In reply to Big Ger:


Which markets are you referring to ?

In reply to RomTheBear:

The same one as you.

In reply to Big Ger:

Which was ?

In reply to RomTheBear:

Do you not read what you type? Or are you just playing silly buggers for the sake of it?


So, why would we be excluded from this; "vast integrated market", if we were to leave the EU?

Try an honest answer for a change

In reply to Big Ger:

I am just wondering what you meant when you said "markets", given that my answer to you will obviously depend on what are those "markets" you are referring to.


I do not think we would necessarily be excluded from the EU single market (this is what I was referring to).
IMO, we might be able to secure access against accepting many eu regulations and freedom of movement but it would be a very suboptimal option compared to full membership. (still better than being out of it though.)



I'll return the advice. I have never claimed that we would be excluded from any markets, you're just putting words in my mouth.

In reply to RomTheBear:



Fair comment, my bad.

In reply to Big Ger:


I just think change and new positions, generally promotes new ideas, innovation, better systems of work and logical thinking on how things can be improved long term. Or you can stick with the far from perfect, but deemed safer current position. The EU is too focused on it's own power games, the Euro, preventing the rise of the right or far left, etc.. while the other parts of the world grow and advance, it will just get left behind as standards of living, education and industry improve across all nations in the East.

The UK would do better to break free, eat some humble pie and rekindle lost common wealth relationships, many of these are the future big G nations.

In reply to summo:
I was admiring your optimism that Rom would take a "broader more positive outlook.".

In reply to Big Ger:


about the same odds a Trump celebrating Eid.

In reply to summo:
"The UK would do better to break free, eat some humble pie and rekindle lost common wealth relationships, many of these are the future big G nations."

How does being in the EU prevent us from eating humble pie (about what? We're hardly perfect but try to be specific about what you think we should apologise for) or rekindling "common wealth" (do you mean Commonwealth?) relationships?